Cornell University Library Staff Web Page

Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index

Public Services Forum

11 January 1999

RWA Notes

1. E-Journal Cataloging. I noted that the ERC Plus meeting in December had identified the cataloging of electronic journals, especially large aggregations of them, as one of our most important current challenges in digital services. We will therefore be creating a small task force to look at the options for such cataloging, using the Elsevier electronic journals (the next, large aggregation we will need to deal with) as a basis. I reported that TSEG felt strongly that a public services staff member should be on this small group from the outset. The group will be responsible for coordinating its work with the Working Group on Cataloging and with IRPC. Our current policy, which must be reviewed, stipulates that we catalog an electronic version on the same record that contains the information about the paper version--a policy adopted partially in response to strong public services recommendations. The potential availability of copy for electronic versions, however, requires that we review the benefits and drawbacks of the current policy.

2. CCC and AAP. Sarah Thomas has asked that any questions from representatives of the Copyright Clearance Center or the Association of American Publishers about CUL policies be referred directly to her. In recent months, a representative of the CCC and AAP has visited some research libraries, and has asked questions of staff in ILL and reserve about copyright compliance and related issues. (ARL is now working with CCC and AAP on the interpretation of copyright regulations.) In the event anyone in CUL is approached by anyone from these organizations, therefore, this person should be referred to the University Librarian.

3. User Survey. Christian Boissonnas reported on work done by a task force he is chairing to develop and effect a survey of CUL users. Phil Davis, Peter McDonald, Nancy Skipper and Steve Rockey are also on this group. The group is now working on two main questions: what should be the purpose of this survey? and who should be the population surveyed?

As for the first question, most staff at this meeting agreed that the survey should provide us with feedback--a reality check--on the quality and extent of our services. We should include among services the quality of the Library's physical spaces and facilities. We should also try to find out whether some users are now depending primarily upon the virtual or digital library.

As for the user population, the issue was raised about whether, as the Land Grant institution for the State, we should be surveying the citizens of the State. We decided this would not be practicable. Lenore made the point that we should be surveying Library staff as well. We talked about the possibility of using the patron file, but then rejected that idea, because it includes individuals who purchase library privileges: we should concentrate rather upon our primary clientele--faculty, students and staff. (We might define primary clientele as those for whom we create our services, and secondary clientele as those who are welcome to make some use of those services we have created for our primary clientele.) Christian's initial idea of using the University directory to define the population was therefore generally viewed as a reasonable approach.

Pat Court asked whether there would be a possibility of asking unit-specific questions (something PSEC had been particularly interested in) when surveying individuals who are from particular schools or colleges. Christian said that might be possible, although the task force is still some distance from identifying specific questions. When the task force reaches that point, it will consult further with CUL staff.

Nancy Skipper said that we need to be careful not to expect more from such a survey than it can deliver. While one can ask the right questions and obtain the right information, applying such information to management decisions is often very difficult. It is for this reason that we must design such a survey very carefully--with a clear view as to how we want to use it.

4. Virtual Carrel. Zsuzsa Koltay provided a briefing on this project, which began in Mann and has now been expanded as a CUL project. Zsuzsa made the point that the Gateway, from the user perspective, is in some ways too small, and in other ways too big. It is too big, because it contains much more than any particular user would want--but it is also too small, in that it does not contain some information needed and used by the individual student or scholar. It is for this reason that users create bookmarks--but the disadvantages of bookmarks are that (a) they can be used only on the machine where they were set, and (b) they discourage updating, because the user does not return to the Gateway to learn what new materials have been added. The idea of the virtual carrel, therefore, would be to provide each user with private Web space, within which the user can create links to key resources (both in the Gateway and elsewhere) and can also keep personal notes and research. This space would reside on a Library server, and would be accessible to no one other than the individual. The user could then access that personal Web space from any computer that can connect to the Web. The Library would assist the user in creating such a personal Web space (ensuring, in the process, that the user has the most important links for the subject area), and would also develop a process to provide the user with periodic updates about new resources or changes that relate to the user's areas of interest. Some other institutions (e.g., Virginia Commonwealth) offer somewhat similar services, but they are not quite the same as what we are envisioning.

Zsuzsa has reported to LMT about this project. LMT decided to retain the original Mann group working on this, which will continue to be chaired by Holly Mistlebauer--but to supplement that group with a few other staff from throughout CUL. Those new members will be announced shortly.

I think this new service concept is significant, and that it is very much in the right direction--but we do also need to be aware from the outset of its full implications. We will be providing users, as never before, with the ability to create their own, high quality, personal libraries. In so doing, we need to consider and plan how those personal libraries, as they grow, should relate over time to the Cornell University Library.

5. Partial Closing. There may be occasions when the University announces a partial closing, because of weather problems--although I do not ever recall seeing this happen myself. Were it to happen, it is our policy to keep the libraries open; but only a partial, "skeletal" staff will remain on duty. Other staff will go home, or will not come in. Skeletal staff will under such circumstances receive additional compensation. I wondered whether we are prepared for such a partial closing. Do skeletal staff know they have been so designated? The response was that the units are prepared for such an eventuality. So unless I hear otherwise from any of the units, I will assume that we are prepared for a partial closing, should one be called. Nancy made the point that the University should call more partial closings, rather than waiting for the weather to become so bad that they need to close the University entirely--by which time it is very difficult for staff to get home. Christian and Lenore agreed that the University should be more sensitive to the needs of staff during such weather emergencies.

6. ILL Charges. We currently charge $75 for books lent through ILL that are lost. This is the same that we charge CUL users for lost books. If units that are lending books want to be sure that the values of those particular items are properly recorded, units can send the correct price along with the book to be lent. It was clear from this meeting, however, that units would be reluctant to spend the time doing this for each item lent through ILL. Jill suggested that those units which know their average price exceeds $75 could routinely provide a higher price. We will finish this discussion in PSEC. There was a general sense that, given the very small number of items we lose through ILL, we should keep this whole process as simple as possible.

Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index

rev. 1/27/99 peo